Dangerous Speech along the Path to Mass Violence

Inflammatory public speech rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence, suggesting that it is a precursor or even a prerequisite for violence, which makes sense: groups of killers do not form spontaneously. In most cases, a few influential speakers gradually incite a group to violence. Violence may be prevented, then, by interfering with this process in any of several ways: inhibiting the speech, limiting its dissemination, undermining the credibility of the speaker, or ‘inoculating’ the audience against the speech so that it is less influential, or dangerous.

Such efforts must not infringe upon freedom of speech, however, since that is a fundamental right and since free speech itself may help to prevent violence. Before acting to limit ‘dangerous speech’ – speech that catalyzes violence – we must have a means to distinguish it from other speech, even that which is controversial or repugnant.

Former WPI Senior Fellow Susan Benesch developed an analytical framework for making the distinction, as part of her Dangerous Speech Project. The framework is based on the insight that the dangerousness of a particular speech act, in the context in which it is made or disseminated, depends on five variables: the speaker, the audience, the speech itself, the historical and social context, and the means of dissemination. For example, some speakers are more influential than others, and some audiences are especially vulnerable.

Benesch has been working since 2010 with the United Nations’ Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide (SAPG), Francis Deng, and more recently with the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Edward Luck, to provide them with tools to limit the catastrophic effects of violent speech in pre-genocidal situations, without impeding the right to freedom of expression. In addition to her guidelines for evaluative monitoring of speech and other efforts, she is also producing a white paper on policy responses to limit the effects of dangerous pre-genocidal speech – paying special attention to new media which are, increasingly, the means of its dissemination. The project has focused on inflammatory speech in several countries in particular, including Cote d’Ivoire, the former Yugoslavia, Egypt, and Kenya.

We are most grateful for the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the United States Institute of Peace.

New Resources and Publications:

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, February 5, 2013, A second panel on Hate Speech and Incitement to Genocide, moderated by Michael Abramowitz, director of the Museum’s genocide prevention program.

United Nations Headquarters, February 1, 2013, Susan Benesch participated in Hate Speech and Incitement to Genocide, a side event to the General Assembly presented by the Government of Norway and the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide.

Harvard University, November 28, 2012, Susan Benesch presented a paper entitled “Antisemitism, Islamophobia, and the Contours of International Human Rights Law” as part of a lecture series sponsored by Harvard’s Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy.

The Media Institute, October 25, 2012, Dangerous Speech Project director Susan Benesch featured in a discussion of the issues raised by the response to the “Innocence of Muslims” video on YouTube and calls in various countries to make that video inaccessible on the Internet.

Council on Foreign Relations, October 23, 2012, Roundtable session on the impact of social media on American domestic and foreign policy.

PBS MediaShift, October 12, 2012, Special Roundtable on Hate Speech vs. Free Speech Online. Featured Susan Benesch, Trevor Timm of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and Jonathan Peters of the Missouri School of Journalism.